Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, quashing assessment orders due to invalid approval under section 153D. The approving authority granted mechanical approval without examining draft orders or indicating thought process, merely rubber-stamping the request using statutory language. Following Orissa HC precedent in ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co., ITAT held that section 153D approval requires meaningful examination by approving authority with indication of reasoning, not mere procedural compliance. Single approval covering multiple assessment years without reference to seized materials demonstrated lack of proper application of mind. Court emphasized that mechanical approval vitiates entire assessment order, as section 153D compliance is mandatory substantive requirement, not mere procedural formality. Revenue's contention that approval is non-justiciable was rejected, establishing that courts can examine approval validity.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, quashing assessment orders due to invalid approval under section 153D. The approving authority granted mechanical approval without examining draft orders or indicating thought process, merely rubber-stamping the request using statutory language. Following Orissa HC precedent in ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co., ITAT held that section 153D approval requires meaningful examination by approving authority with indication of reasoning, not mere procedural compliance. Single approval covering multiple assessment years without reference to seized materials demonstrated lack of proper application of mind. Court emphasized that mechanical approval vitiates entire assessment order, as section 153D compliance is mandatory substantive requirement, not mere procedural formality. Revenue's contention that approval is non-justiciable was rejected, establishing that courts can examine approval validity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.